What is the most useless statistic in sports?

SidePocket · January 10, 2009 8:03AM

I vote for the "quarterback rating". I have no idea how it's calculated and could care less. Watching the first half of the Ravens/Titans game, Flacco has a qb rating of 108. He completed 3 passes for 68 yards in the half. Collins has moved his team up and down the field and is something like a 78 rating. Dumb!

BassPro77 · January 10, 2009 8:04AM

i agree. i think its one of them geometry things no one understands.

Mphilking · January 10, 2009 8:05AM

Post counts. (579)

lawnmowerman · January 10, 2009 8:08AM

Any statistic pertaining to the Philadelphia Eagles

BassPro77 · January 10, 2009 8:09AM

<< Any statistic pertaining to the Philadelphia Eagles

>>

you mean the cowboys?

fur72 · January 10, 2009 8:18AM

ERA for relievers. They can come in with the bases loaded give up a tripple and all of the earned runs get charged the pitcher who let the people on base.

otwcards · January 10, 2009 8:21AM

It used to be game winning RBI, but thankfully, they got rid of that. It was given to the player that drove in the run that put his team in the lead (assuming the lead was not lost at any other point in the game.

Hence, a player could have a leadoff HR in a game that his team wins 19-18 (while never being tied or behind) and was credited with the GWRBI.

BassPro77 · January 10, 2009 8:26AM

not even gonna get involved with this, because my opinion is different and not wanting to p=off yall

fur72 · January 10, 2009 8:36AM

<< It used to be game winning RBI, but thankfully, they got rid of that. It was given to the player that drove in the run that put his team in the lead (assuming the lead was not lost at any other point in the game.

Hence, a player could have a leadoff HR in a game that his team wins 19-18 (while never being tied or behind) and was credited with the GWRBI. >>

Indeed the guys who help set up the victory never get the glory, just the guy who finishes it. Can anyone seriously tell me, with out looking, who was all on base when Joe Carter hit the Grand Slam to win the world series?

70sToppsGuy · January 10, 2009 8:41AM

I think "Holds" are dumb. Can't wait for some middle reliever to get in the HOF as the career leader in Holds.

I also hate OPS. That stat seemed to just come out of nowhere a few years ago. On Base + Slugging ? What ? On Base + Batting Average makes more sense.

SoonerCowboy · January 10, 2009 8:53AM

How to calculate quarterback rating:
a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.

QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06

BassPro77 · January 10, 2009 8:57AM

??????????????

Mphilking · January 10, 2009 9:02AM

Yards per punt!

Beck6 · January 10, 2009 9:08AM

How about regular season wins and losses in the NBA?

WinPitcher · January 10, 2009 9:11AM

What Jim Rice did on tuesday nights at Fenway against ambidextrous midgets (can i say midgets)?

Steve

otwcards · January 10, 2009 9:56AM

<< 

<< It used to be game winning RBI, but thankfully, they got rid of that. It was given to the player that drove in the run that put his team in the lead (assuming the lead was not lost at any other point in the game.

Hence, a player could have a leadoff HR in a game that his team wins 19-18 (while never being tied or behind) and was credited with the GWRBI. >>

Indeed the guys who help set up the victory never get the glory, just the guy who finishes it. Can anyone seriously tell me, with out looking, who was all on base when Joe Carter hit the Grand Slam to win the world series? >>

Joe Carter did not hit a grand slam to win the World Series...

wolfbear · January 10, 2009 9:56AM

The QB rating system actually works pretty well.

If you're using it to analyze stats through half time only it can seem out of whack sometimes.

Fun to play around with : Passer Rating Calculator

summerof68 · January 10, 2009 9:59AM

The "quality start" statistic for MLB pitchers is a joke. If a pitcher goes 6 innings and gives up 3 earned runs or less that is considered a "quality start". If a pitcher gives up 3 runs in six innings then that equates to a 4.5 era for 9 innings--since when is a 4.5 era a quality anything? Tim McCarver stated that this modern day statisitic is a joke and I totally agree. Do you think that if Gibson or Koufax left a game after 6 innings when giving up 3 earned runs they would personally consider that a quality start--hell no!!! I would wager to say that both would not consider it a "quality start" even if they gave up 3 earned runs after 8 innings as opposed to 6.....

WinPitcher · January 10, 2009 10:03AM

In todays game leaving the game after 6 innings with 3 runs allowed is a lot different then
when Koufax and the boys were doing it.

I agree it is silly though.

Steve

MBMiller25 · January 10, 2009 10:11AM

YAC = Yards after Catch

Mphilking · January 10, 2009 10:14AM

I actually think the YAC stat is a pretty good one.

mtcards · January 10, 2009 10:22AM

Time of possession in hockey is stupid. If you sit and play with the puck for 5 minutes and do not get a shot and the other team gets and has 30 seconds and gets 2 shots, which is better?

diamondman · January 10, 2009 11:46AM

how many times the BB player scratches his nuts!

rube26105 · January 10, 2009 11:48AM

vtbub · January 10, 2009 12:05PM

The baseball save.

thehallmark · January 10, 2009 12:27PM

QB rating is ok for what it is. The problem is that people think it means more than it does. In today's game, it didn't mean that Flacco was having a way better half than Collins. Like most stats, QB rating tells you nothing in short periods of time. Don't blame the stat. Blame the misinformed brains who are trying to make sense of it and the networks for pretending it is a game stat instead of a season/career stat.

As far as baseball productivity stats, OPS is fantastic. It isn't perfect, obviously. But you want to measure consistency of successful at-bats and then different degrees of success in those at-bats, OPS at least begins to do that. There are other lesser known metrics that are better than OPS and they will gain in popularity as the cranky old sportswriters die off and the morons get smarter.

I think a pretty useless stat is time of possession in football. It seems as if even the most experienced studio analysts misunderstand the relationship between time of possession and points/wins. The thing is that teams tend to possess the ball more when they are winning. You don't win because you possess the ball more. You win because you score more. Simple, really.

Tabe · January 10, 2009 5:51PM

<< I think "Holds" are dumb. Can't wait for some middle reliever to get in the HOF as the career leader in Holds.

I also hate OPS. That stat seemed to just come out of nowhere a few years ago. On Base + Slugging ? What ? On Base + Batting Average makes more sense. >>

Since Batting Average is already a large component of On Base, no, it doesn't make more sense.

OPS measures: A) How often a guy gets on base plus

How far the guy gets when he gets there when he hit his way on

Your alternative measures: A) How often a guy gets on base plus

How often a guy gets on base not counting his walks and stuff, which are counted in part A.

How does that make sense?

My vote, at least among stats regularly used, is the save in baseball. Lots of morons thought K-Rod had the greatest reliever season ever in 2008 because he set a record for saves. Never mind that a reliever can get a save in all kinds of situations in which he is never really under any pressure. EX: 3-0 lead, bases empty, 2 outs. Get one out, get a save. Gimme a break. It's a crap stat that does a major disservice to relievers of the 1970s and 1980s like Mike Marshall, guys who pitched a ton of innings in "non-save" situations. And a pox on managers who make decisions based on this one stat. It's just stupid.

Tabe

yankeeno7 · January 10, 2009 10:38PM

GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rbdjr1 · January 10, 2009 10:43PM

BCS ratings!

then the "ball players scratching their nuts thing"

rd

bman90278 · January 10, 2009 11:46PM

I would say the W - L record when you get into the playoffs in the NFL. Just ask the Colts, Titans, Panthers, and the Falcons.

IchiroDeported · January 11, 2009 2:24AM

"What Jim Rice did on tuesday nights at Fenway against ambidextrous midgets (can i say midgets)?"

simply hilariuos.

and yes, you can say midgets, dwarfs, gnomes, little people and human ottomans.

ripkenintheminors · January 11, 2009 4:17AM

I wouldn't call is "most useless", but W-L records among starting pitchers is an abused statistic.

markj111 · January 11, 2009 6:18AM

Saves

thedutymon · January 11, 2009 6:31AM

Good Day,
Just heard a most useless stat, the end of the Game just now between Phil/Giants is the only playoff game ever to end with a score of 23 to 11. WhatEver!!! Who gives a Bleep!!!
Neil

Hoopster · January 11, 2009 6:33AM

<< What Jim Rice did on tuesday nights at Fenway against ambidextrous midgets (can i say midgets)?

Steve >>

Hence the need to look at measurements that actually measure the players worth, as opposed to measuring luck, teamamtes, or the venue they play in.

What Jm Rice did on tuesday nights at Fenway against ambidextrous midgets is about as informative as just saying what his RBI total, or runs scored total was. Neither are very good measurements.

WinPitcher · January 11, 2009 6:34AM

lol I was hoping you would see that Skip.

How the heck are you?

Steve

Hoopster · January 11, 2009 6:37AM

Steve,

I am good. I have been behaving nicely, and just having some fun around here.

-Skip

MeteoriteGuy · January 11, 2009 6:45AM

Attendance.

What is the most useless statistic in sports?

Comments